Management of Hypertension with the Fixed Combination of Perindopril and Amlodipine in Daily Clinical Practice

Background

Current clinical guidelines recognize that the use of more than one agent is necessary to achieve target BP in the majority of patients. The ASCOT-BPLA trial demonstrated that the free combination of amlodipine and perindopril effectively controlled BP and was better than a β-adrenoceptor antagonist (β-blocker)/diuretic combination in reducing total mortality and cardiovascular outcomes.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a fixed combination of perindopril and amlodipine in the clinical setting.

Study design

The STRONG (SafeTy & efficacy analysis of coveRsyl amlodipine in uncOntrolled and Newly diaGnosed hypertension) study was a prospective, observational, multicenter trial.

Setting

This was a naturalistic, real-world, clinic-based, outpatient study involving 336 general practitioners/ primary care physicians in 65 cities in India.

Patients

Adults aged 40–70 years with newly diagnosed/untreated stage 2 hypertension (BP ≥ 160/100 mmHg), hypertension uncontrolled with monotherapy (BP > 140/90 mmHg), or hypertension inadequately managed with another combination therapy.

Intervention

Fixed combination perindopril 4 mg/amlodipine 5 mg once daily for 60 days.

Main outcomes measure

The primary outcomes were the mean change in BP from baseline and the proportion of patients achieving adequate BP control (≤ 140/90 mmHg, or ≤ 130/80 mmHg in patients with diabetes mellitus) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Secondary analyses included incidence of adverse events (ITT) and treatment adherence rate (completers).

Results

In total, 1250 patients comprised the ITT population: 32.6% with newly diagnosed hypertension; 40.5% with hypertension uncontrolled with monotherapy; and 26.9% with hypertension inadequately managed with another combination therapy. Mean SBP/DBP decreased significantly from baseline (167.4±15.2/101.4±9.1 mmHg) over 60 days (?41.9 ± 34.8/?23.2 ± 21.8 mmHg; p<0.0001). Target BP was achieved in 66.1% of patients in the total population, 68.3% of untreated patients, 68.4% of patients uncontrolled with monotherapy, and 59.9% of patients inadequately managed with combination therapy. In 161 patients with SBP >180 mmHg at baseline (newly diagnosed: n = 50; uncontrolled on monotherapy: n = 53; inadequately managed on combination therapy: n = 58), BP was reduced by 63.2 ± 32.5/29.0 ± 21.9 mmHg (p<0.0001) at day 60. The fixed combination was safe and well tolerated. All 1175 patients completing the 60-day study (94%) adhered to their treatment regimen.

Conclusion

Fixed combination perindopril/amlodipine was found to be an effective and well tolerated antihypertensive treatment, with an excellent rate of treatment adherence in the clinical setting. Fixed combination perindopril/amlodipine is expected to be useful in the management of hypertension in primary healthcare, with a positive impact on treatment adherence.     

An Olmesartan Medoxomil-Based Treatment Algorithm is Effective in Achieving 24-Hour BP Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Regardless of Age, Race, Sex, or Severity of Hypertension

Background

Hypertension often occurs concomitantly with diabetes mellitus, such that >50% of adults with type 2 diabetes have hypertension. These individuals are at a greater risk of developing renal and cardiovascular disease. The currently recommended BP goal of <130/80 mmHg for patients with type 2 diabetes is achieved in only 37.5% of treated patients with diabetes and hypertension.

Methods

The antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil (OM) ± hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) was investigated in prespecified subgroups (age <65/≥65 years, Blacks/non-Blacks, males/females, or stage 1/ stage 2 hypertension) of patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes enrolled in an open-label, single-arm study (n= 192). Patients started treatment with OM 20 mg/day and were uptitrated at 3-week intervals to OM 40, OM/HCTZ 40/12.5, and OM/HCTZ 40/25 mg/day if BP was ≥120/70 mmHg. The primary endpoint was the change in mean 24-hour ambulatory SBP from baseline to week 12, assessed by mean 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring. Secondary endpoints included changes in mean 24-hour ambulatory DBP, mean daytime ambulatory BP, mean nighttime ambulatory BP, and mean office seated BP, and the proportions of patients achieving prespecified ambulatory BP targets.

Setting

This was a multicenter study (24 sites) that took place between November 2006 and November 2007 in the US.

Results

BP reductions were significant (p<0.0001) and similar among subgroups of patients with type 2 diabetes. Following dose titration to OM/HCTZ 40/25 mg/day, similar proportions of patients in the age, race, and sex subgroups (approximately 60–64% across these subgroups) achieved an ambulatory BP target of <130/80 mmHg. A larger proportion of patients with type 2 diabetes and stage 1 hypertension achieved this same goal compared with patients with stage 2 hypertension (75% vs 46.3%). The combination of OM/HCTZ was well tolerated in all patient subgroups irrespective of age, race, sex, or hypertension severity.

Conclusions

In this open-label study, OM/HCTZ combination therapy was efficacious and well tolerated in subgroups of patients with diabetes and hypertension.     

Combination of Amlodipine plus Angiotensin Receptor Blocker or Diuretics in High-Risk Hypertensive Patients

Background and Objectives

Antihypertensive therapy is effective in reducing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. However, blood pressure (BP) control rate remains poor and the optimal combination therapy against hypertension is not established in China. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of two antihypertensive regimens, amlodipine plus telmisartan and amlodipine plus amiloride/hydrochlorothiazide, in patients with essential hypertension and at least one cardiovascular risk factor.

Methods

In a multicenter open-label clinical trial, eligible patients were randomized to receive treatment with amlodipine 2.5–5 mg plus amiloride/hydrochlorothiazide 1.25–2.5 mg/12.5–25 mg (Group A) or amlodipine 2.5–5 mg plus telmisartan 40–80 mg (Group T). If a target BP was not reached, other antihypertensive agents would be added. The target BP was <130/80mmHg for patients with diabetes mellitus or chronic kidney disease and <140/90mmHg for others. Efficacy variables were changes from baseline in systolic BP and diastolic BP at the endpoint of 96 weeks. Safety evaluations included monitoring of any adverse events (AEs).

Results

Of 13 542 patients randomized, 13 080 (96.6%) completed the study: 6529 in Group A and 6551 in Group T. At endpoint, the BP levels were reduced by 27.4/14.3 mmHg in Group A and 27.1/14.5 mmHg in Group T. The BP control rates were similar for the two therapeutic regimens (87.5% vs 86.1%). Less than 4% of patients in each group discontinued their drugs during follow-up. Peripheral edema was one of the most common AEs, and occurred in only 24 patients in Group A and 19 in Group T.

Conclusions

Long-term combination therapy with amlodipine plus telmisartan or amlodipine plus amiloride/hydrochlorothiazide was not only well tolerated but also efficacious in reducing BP levels with acceptable control rates in the majority of hypertensive patients.

Clinical Trials Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01011660.     

Blood Pressure Effects of High-Dose Amlodipine-Benazepril Combination in Black and White Hypertensive Patients Not Controlled on Monotherapy

Background

Black hypertensive patients are more resistant to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor monotherapy than White patients. This resistance can be overcome with the combination of ACE inhibitors with diuretics or calcium-channel blockers (CCBs).

Objectives

The objective of this clinical investigation was to evaluate the antihypertensive effectiveness of monotherapy with the ACE inhibitor benazepril or the CCB amlodipine and their combination in Black and White hypertensive patients in two separate studies.

Methods

This was a post hoc analysis of data from two separate studies, pooled because of their similarities, to increase the sample size. Outpatient Black and White hypertensive patients were selected for these studies. In study H2303, 201 patients of both sexes and races, whose mean seated diastolic blood pressure (MSDBP) was ≥95 mmHg after 4 weeks of single-blind treatment with benazepril 40mg/day, were randomized into two groups. Group 1 received benazepril 40mg/day and group 2 received amlodipine/benazepril 5/40mg/day, which was uptitrated to amlodipine/benazepril 10/40 mg/day at week 4 of the study. In study H2304, 812 similar patients, whose MSDBP was ≥95 mmHg after 4 weeks of single-blind treatment with amlodipine 10 mg/day, were randomized into three groups. Group 1 received amlodipine/benazepril 10/20 mg/day, uptitrated to amlodipine/benazepril 10/40 mg/day after 2 weeks. Group 2 received amlodipine/benazepril 10/20 mg/day. Group 3 received amlodipine 10 mg/day. All three groups were followed up for 6 additional weeks.

Results

This report presents the results of post hoc analysis of pooled data from two separate but similar studies. Combination therapy resulted in greater lowering of MSDBP and mean seated systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) than monotherapy with either benazepril or amlodipine (p< 0.001). With respect to combination therapy, the combination of amlodipine/benazepril 10/20 mg/day resulted in greater blood pressure (BP) reductions in White patients than in Black patients (p<0.004). In contrast, the combination of amlodipine/benazepril 10/40 mg/day resulted in similar BP reductions in both Black and White hypertensive patients. There were no serious clinical or metabolic side effects noted, with the exception of pedal edema, which was more common with amlodipine monotherapy.

Conclusion

This study showed that combination therapy with amlodipine/benazepril is more effective in BP lowering than monotherapy with the component drugs. Black hypertensive patients are responsive to the combination of amlodipine/benazepril; however, they require higher dose combinations for BP reductions similar to those achieved in White hypertensive patients.     

Placebo Effect and Efficacy of Nebivolol in Patients with Hypertension not Controlled with Lisinopril or Losartan: A Phase IV, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Background

Most patients with hypertension require more than one antihypertensive to achieve blood pressure (BP) control.

Objective

The purpose of this trial was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of add-on nebivolol, a vasodilatory β-blocker, in patients with untreated or poorly controlled hypertension, receiving stable therapy with lisinopril (an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor) or losartan (an angiotensin II receptor blocker).

Study Design

This was a phase IV double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from August 2008 to March 2010 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00734630). Patients entered a 2-week, single-blind, placebo-only washout phase, followed by a 3- to 4-week open-label lead-in phase (lisinopril, 10–20 mg/day, or losartan, 50–100 mg/day), and a 12-week randomized, double-blind add-on treatment phase with placebo or nebivolol (5–40 mg/day).

Setting

This study was conducted at 76 outpatient centers in the United States.

Patients

Participants were men and women aged 18–85 years with a diagnosis of primary hypertension and seated trough systolic BP (SBP) at screening in the range of 170–200 mmHg if untreated, 155–180 mmHg if taking 1 antihypertensive medication, or 140–170 mmHg if taking 2 antihypertensive medications.

Intervention

The intervention was 12 weeks’ treatment with nebivolol 5–40 mg/day added to a background therapy of lisinopril 10–20 mg/day or losartan 50–100 mg/day.

Main Outcome Measures

Primary and secondary efficacy parameters were changes from baseline in seated trough cuff SBP and diastolic BP (DBP) at Week 12, respectively. Tolerability was assessed by monitoring treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

Results

A total of 491 patients were randomized to receive nebivolol (n = 258) or placebo (n = 233). Efficacy analyses were conducted for 256 nebivolol and 232 placebo patients (intent-to-treat population); completion rates were 88.8 % and 85.8 %, respectively. Mean baseline SBP/DBP values were 163.1/98.2 mmHg (nebivolol) and 162.4/96.8 mmHg (placebo). Nebivolol was associated with a non-significant mean ± SD reduction in SBP (?10.1 ± 16.9 mmHg) versus placebo (?7.3 ± 15.9 mmHg, P = 0.093) and significant mean DBP reduction (?7.8 ± 10.1 mmHg vs ?3.5 ± 10.6 mmHg, P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis suggested a significant effect on DBP for patients receiving background losartan treatment (?8.1 ± 9.2 mmHg vs ?3.1 ± 9.4 mmHg, P < 0.001), but not for those receiving lisinopril (?7.6 ± 10.8 mmHg vs ?3.8 ± 11.6 mmHg, P = 0.076). A total of 28 % nebivolol-treated and 22 % placebo-treated patients reported a TEAE, the most frequent being upper respiratory tract infection (4.3 % and 2.1 %, respectively), bradycardia (2.7 % and 0 %), headache (2.3 % and 2.1 %), and nasopharyngitis (2.3 % and 0.9 %).

Conclusion

These data suggest that nebivolol, when added to lisinopril or losartan, results in an additional BP reduction; however, only the effect on DBP reached statistical significance. A subanalysis suggests that the effect on DBP may be stronger in losartan-treated than lisinopril-treated patients. A relatively strong placebo effect may limit data interpretation. Nebivolol was well tolerated, as there was no difference in TEAEs between nebivolol and placebo.

Funding

This trial (NCT00734630) was funded by Forest Laboratories, Inc.     

Effect of an Olmesartan Medoxomil-Based Treatment Algorithm on Systolic Blood Pressure in Patients with Stage 1 or 2 Hypertension

Background and Objective

Elevated systolic BP (SBP) is a major contributor to cardiovascular disease. SBP control reduces the occurrence of stroke, heart failure, and cardiovascular and total mortality. The aim of this study was to analyze the magnitude of SBP reductions and the achievement of individual SBP targets in the original BENIFORCE study.

Methods

An olmesartan medoxomil-based treatment algorithm was evaluated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled titration study in 276 patients with stage 1 (47.1%) or 2 (52.9%) hypertension. After placebo run-in, patients were randomized to placebo (12 weeks) or olmesartan medoxomil 20 mg/day (weeks 1–3). Olmesartan medoxomil was uptitrated to 40 mg/day (weeks 4–6), then olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 40/12.5 mg per day (weeks 7–9), and olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ 40/25 mg per day (weeks 10–12) if BP remained ≥120/80 mmHg at any time interval.

Setting

The BENIFORCE study was a multicenter (29 sites) study conducted between January and October 2007 in the US.

Results

In patients receiving olmesartan medoxomil-based therapy, 81.0%, 67.2%, and 46.6% of patients with stage 1 hypertension and 70.4%, 49.4%, and 23.5% of patients with stage 2 hypertension achieved SBP targets of <140, <130, and <120 mmHg, respectively (all p<0.01 vs placebo). The proportions of patients achieving SBP targets increased with escalating doses of olmesartan medoxomil and HCTZ, administered alone or in combination, and was highest for combination therapy. Similarly, escalating doses of olmesartan medoxomil or olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ increased the proportion of patients achieving SBP reductions of >15 but ≤30, >30 but ≤45, and >45 mmHg compared with placebo.

Conclusion

An olmesartan medoxomil-based treatment algorithm effectively reduced SBP and achieved SBP targets in patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension. This regimen resulted in >80% of patients achieving SBP reductions of ≥15 mmHg while 44% achieved SBP reductions of >30 mmHg.     

Combination Therapy with Olmesartan Medoxomil and Hydrochlorothiazide

Background

The combination of olmesartan medoxomil and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) [olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ] has previously been shown to produce significantly greater SBP/DBP reductions than monotherapy with either agent alone in a randomized, double-blind, factorial study in patients with stage 2 hypertension. Compared with the evaluation of a single mean BP reduction in a patient population, determining the efficacy of an antihypertensive agent in achieving multiple BP targets provides additional information about the range of BP reductions attainable within this study population.

Objective

To conduct a secondary analysis of this study to evaluate the proportion of patients achieving combined SBP/DBP targets recommended in current hypertension treatment guidelines as well as individual SBP and DBP targets.

Methods

A total of 502 patients with DBP ≥100 and ≤115 mmHg were randomized to 8 weeks of treatment with placebo, HCTZ 12.5 or 25 mg/day, olmesartan medoxomil 10, 20, or 40 mg/day, or olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ 10/12.5, 10/25, 20/12.5, 20/25, 40/12.5, or 40/25 mg/day. Mean baseline SBP ranged from 151.9 to 156.6 mmHg and mean baseline DBP ranged from 102.6 to 104.4 mmHg across the twelve treatment arms. The chi-squared test was used to compare the proportion of patients achieving each BP goal in each of the 11 active treatment regimens with that in the placebo group.

Results

The proportion of patients achieving an SBP <140 or <130 mmHg, DBP <90, <85, or <80 mmHg and combined SBP/DBP <140/90, <130/85, <130/80, or <120/80 mmHg typically increased with escalating dosages of olmesartan medoxomil and HCTZ when administered alone or in combination, but was always highest in those treated with the combination. As the BP goal became progressively more stringent, the proportion of patients achieving the BP goal decreased in each treatment group, although the trend toward greater reductions in patients treated with combination therapy remained intact. All combined SBP/DBP goals were achieved by a statistically significant proportion of patients (p<0.05) in the olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ 20/25, 40/12.5, and 40/25 treatment groups.

Conclusions

A majority of patients with uncomplicated stage 2 hypertension can achieve recommended BP goals when treated with the combination of olmesartan medoxomil and HCTZ.     

Antihypertensive Efficacy of Triple Combination Perindopril/Indapamide Plus Amlodipine in High-Risk Hypertensives: Results of the PIANIST Study (Perindopril-Indapamide plus AmlodipiNe in high rISk hyperTensive patients)

Objective

Our objective was to evaluate a triple-drug antihypertensive strategy for blood pressure control in patients with difficult-to-treat hypertension.

Design

The Perindopril-Indapamide plus AmlodipiNe in high rISk hyperTensive patients (PIANIST) trial was an observational, 4-month, open-label study.

Patients and interventions

A total of 4,731 patients at high or very high cardiovascular risk with hypertension that was not properly controlled despite antihypertensive therapy, and for whom study treatment (fixed-dose perindopril 10 mg/indapamide 2.5 mg + amlodipine 5 or 10 mg) was consistent with their existing therapeutic plan, were included.

Outcomes

One-sample t tests and Chi-squared tests were performed to evaluate changes in blood pressure.

Results

Mean baseline office blood pressure (OBP) was 160.5 ± 13.3/93.8 ± 8.7 mmHg. After 4 months of therapy, OBP decreased by 28.3 ± 13.5/13.8 ± 9.4 to 132.2 ± 8.6/80.0 ± 6.6 mmHg (p < 0.0001). Blood pressure targets were reached by 72.0 % of patients and by 81 and 91 % of patients previously treated with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/hydrochlorothiazide or an angiotensin receptor blocker/hydrochlorothiazide, respectively. Changes in OBP were 18.7 ± 8.3/9.7 ± 7.2 mmHg for grade 1 (n = 1,679), 30.4 ± 10.1/14.7 ± 8.6 mmHg for grade 2 (n = 2,397), and 45.4 ± 15.1/20.7 ± 12.1 mmHg for grade 3 patients (n = 655; all p < 0.0001). In patients who underwent ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (n = 104), 24-h mean blood pressure decreased from 147.4 ± 13.8/82.1 ± 11.9 to 122.6 ± 9.1/72.8 ± 7.4 mmHg (p < 0.0001). Ankle edema was infrequent (0.2 % of patients).

Conclusion

Triple combination perindopril/indapamide/amlodipine was effectively and safely administered to a large population of high- and very high-risk hypertensive patients who had not reached target OBP values with previous treatment.     

Efficacy of Olmesartan Medoxomil and Hydrochlorothiazide Fixed-Dose Combination Therapy in Patients Aged 65 Years and Older with Stage 1 and 2 Hypertension or Isolated Systolic Hypertension

Background: The incidence of hypertension, particularly isolated systolic hypertension, increases with in-creasing age, as does the risk of fatal cardiovascular disease. A combination antihypertensive therapy regimen may be required to reach recommended BP goals in older patients. Objectives: This study set out to report blood pressure (BP) data in elderly patients across the subgroups of stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension (prespecified subgroup) and isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) [post hoc]. Design and Setting: This was a subgroup analysis of a prospective, open-label study carried out in a multicenter, outpatient setting (e.g. the BeniSILVER [Benicar Efficacy: New Investigation Shows OM Treatment Increasingly Leads to Various Elderly Populations to Safe BP Reductions; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00412932] study). The study included 176 patients with a mean age of approximately 72 years; stage 1 hypertension, 60, stage 2 hypertension, 116, and ISH, 98. Intervention: After a 2- to 3-week placebo run-in period, patients were uptitrated every 3 weeks from olmesartan medoxomil (OM) 20 mg daily to OM 40 mg, OM/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 40 mg/12.5 mg, and OM/HCTZ 40 mg/25 mg, if seated cuff BP (SeBP) was ≥120/70 mmHg. Measurements: Measurements included change from baseline in mean 24-hour ambulatory BP and SeBP after 12 weeks of treatment, percentage of patients achieving a cumulative SeBP goal of <140/90mmHg (stage 1 and stage 2 cohorts) or seated cuff systolic BP (SeSBP) goal of <140 mmHg (ISH cohort), and the incidence of adverse events (AEs). Results: Combination therapy was required by 159 patients. Changes from baseline in mean 24-hour ambulatory BP (±standard deviation [SD]) were ?24.2 (± 11.8)/?11.8 (± 6.9) mmHg, ?26.5 (± 11.8)/?12.6 (± 6.7) mmHg, and ?24.7 (? 12.5)/?11.2 (± 6.4) mmHg in the stage 1, stage 2, and ISH cohorts, respectively (all p< 0.001 vs baseline). Mean SeBP changes (± SD) from baseline in patients titrated to OM/HCTZ 40 mg/25 mg were ?24.6 (± 11.4)/?10.5 (± 7.3) mmHg in the stage 1 cohort, ?26.4 (± 17.2)/?11.3 (±9.7) mmHg in the stage 2 cohort, and ?21.5 (± 15.6)/?6.8 (± 7.8) mmHg in the ISH cohort (all p <0.001). The cumulative proportions of patients achieving an SeBP goal of <140/90mmHg by week 12 were 88.3%, 56.0%, and 72.4% in the stage 1, stage 2, and ISH cohorts, respectively, while 72.4% of patients achieved an SeSBP of <140 mmHg in the ISH cohort. Treatment-emergent AEs ranged from 32.3% to 32.8%, with <3% of patients reporting drug-related hypotension. Conclusion: An OM/HCTZ-based titration regimen enabled elderly patients with hypertension to safely reduce BP throughout the 24-hour dosing interval and allowed the majority of these patients to achieve a BP target of <140/90 mmHg or <140 mmHg.     

Aliskiren as Add-On Therapy in the Treatment of Hypertensive Diabetic Patients Inadequately Controlled with Valsartan/HCT Combination

Background

Hypertension frequently coexists with diabetes mellitus, resulting in increased cardiovascular risk. Thus, BP control is crucial in decreasing morbidity and mortality in this difficult-to-treat patient population.

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aliskiren in hypertensive patients with diabetes not adequately responsive to the combination of valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCT).

Methods

After a 1-to 4-week washout period, patients with a mean sitting diastolic BP (msDBP) ≥95mmHg were treated with valsartan 160mg for 2 weeks followed by valsartan/HCT 160mg/25mg for an additional 4 weeks (single-blind active run-in period). Patients whose msDBP remained ≥85mmHg after the active run-in period were randomized (1 : 1) to receive aliskiren 150mg (n = 184) or placebo (n = 179) as add-on therapy for 6 weeks. Aliskiren was then force-titrated to 300mg once daily for another 6 weeks. Efficacy variables were: the change in msDBP and mean sitting systolic BP (msSBP) from baseline to week 12 endpoint, diastolic response (msDBP < 80mmHg or reduction of at least 10mmHg), and BP control rate (<130/80mmHg).

Results

Of the 363 patients randomized, 328 (90.4%) completed the study (aliskiren and placebo groups: 89.7% and 91.1%, respectively). At week 12 endpoint, the least squares mean (LSM) changes in msDBP (aliskiren vs placebo: ?5.8 vs ?4.8mmHg; p = 0.2767) and msSBP (aliskiren vs placebo: ?7.3 vs ?4.8 mmHg; p = 0.0725) were numerically greater in patients treated with aliskiren compared with those treated with placebo; however, this difference was not statistically significant. The proportion of diastolic responders (aliskiren and placebo: 68.5% and 72.9%, respectively; p = 0.8482) and patients achieving BP control (aliskiren and placebo: 16.0% and 16.4%, respectively; p = 0.7511) were similar for both groups. Overall, 63 (34%) and 59 (33%) patients in the aliskiren and placebo groups, respectively, experienced adverse events (AEs). The most commonly reported AEs were headache (placebo group: 6.1%) and dizziness (aliskiren group: 4.4%). Aliskiren was well tolerated.

Conclusion

The reductions in BP with aliskiren added to valsartan/HCT in this study were numerically greater compared with placebo added to valsartan/HCT, although not statistically significant. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00219102.     

Triple-Combination Therapy with Olmesartan, Amlodipine, and Hydrochlorothiazide in Black and Non-Black Study Participants with Hypertension

Background Although awareness of hypertension in Black patients has increased, blood pressure (BP) is frequently inadequately controlled. Objective This prespecified subgroup analysis of the TRINITY study evaluated the efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil (OM) 40 mg, amlodipine besylate (AML) 10 mg, and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg triple-combination treatment compared with the component dual-combination treatments in Black and non-Black study participants. Study Design TRINITY was a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group evaluation. The first patient was enrolled in May 2008 and the last patient completed the study in February 2009. The study consisted of a 3-week washout period for participants receiving antihypertensive therapy and a 12-week double-blind treatment period. For the treatment phase, all study participants were stratified by age, race, and diabetes mellitus status and randomized to a treatment sequence that led to their final treatment assignment, which they received from weeks 4 to 12 (OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg, OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg, OM 40 mg/HCTZ 25 mg, or AML 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg). In the first 2 weeks of the double-blind treatment period, all participants received either dual-combination treatment or placebo. Participants assigned to dual-combination treatment continued treatment until week 4, and participants receiving placebo were switched at week 2 to receive one of the dual-combination treatments until week 4. At week 4, participants either continued dual-combination treatment or randomly received triple-combination treatment until week 12. Setting 317 clinical sites in the USA and Puerto Rico were included in the study. Patients Study participants eligible for randomization (N = 2492) were ≥18 years of age with mean seated blood pressure (SeBP) ≥140/100 mmHg or ≥160/90 mmHg (off antihypertensive medication). Intervention The intervention was with dual- or triple-combination antihypertensive treatment: OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg, OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg, OM 40 mg/HCTZ 25 mg, or AML 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg. Main Outcome Measure The primary efficacy variable was the change in least squares (LS) mean seated diastolic BP (SeDBP) from baseline to week 12. Secondary efficacy variables included the LS mean change in seated systolic BP (SeSBP), percentage of study participants reaching BP goal, and safety parameters. >Results In both Black and non-Black participants, triple-combination treatment resulted in significant and similar mean reductions in SeDBP and SeSBP (p≤0.0001 vs each dual-combination treatment) with a greater proportion of participants reaching BP goal compared with dual-combination treatments, regardless of race. Most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild or moderate in severity and no new safety concerns were identified. Conclusion Triple-combination treatment provided greater BP reductions than dual-combination treatments regardless of race. Clinical Trial Registration Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00649389.     

Persistence of anti-hypertensive effect after missed dose of perindopril

AIMS: To assess the persistence of the antihypertensive effect of the ACE-inhibitor perindopril after one missed dose. METHODS: After a placebo run-in period, 10 hypertensive patients were started on perindopril 4 mg once daily in the morning, increased to 8 mg once daily after 4 weeks if office diastolic BP >85 mmHg. 24 h BP monitoring was performed at the end of the placebo run-in period and during active treatment in week 9 and 10 on either active treatment or a placebo-day using a double-blind, randomized, cross-over design. RESULTS: Office BP decreased from 155+/-3/100+/-2 mmHg at the end of placebo to 139+/-3/89+/-2 mmHg (P<0.05 vs placebo) after 8 weeks of active treatment. After 2 months of active treatment, 24 h ABP showed significant decreases in day BP by -11+/-1/-7+/-1 mmHg and in night BP by -11+/-2/-7+/-1 mmHg while on active treatment. During the placebo-day, daytime BP showed decreases by -10+/-1/-5+/-1 and night BP by -8+/-2/-6+/-1 mmHg (NS vs active treatment day). CONCLUSIONS: Perindopril 4-8 mg day-1 causes a persistent decrease in BP during the 24 h dosing interval, which is mostly maintained over the 24-48 h after dosing.     

Effect of angiotensin II type I receptor A1166C polymorphism on benazepril action in hypertensive patients: A family-based association test study

Background

Few studies have examined the effect of the angiotensin II type I receptor (AT1R) A1166C polymorphism on the antihypertensive effect of the angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor benazepril in patients with hypertension, and no such studies have performed analysis using the Family-Based Association Test (FBAT), The aim of our study was to examine the association between AT1R A1166C gene polymorphism and the antihypertensive effect of benazepril using the FBAT.

Methods and Results

A total of 864 patients (aged, 26–62 years) with essential hypertension were identified in an epidemiological survey and enrolled in this study. Blood pressure (BP) was measured before and after 16 days of treatment with benazepril (10 mg/day). The association between the A1166C gene polymorphism and the antihypertensive effect of benazepril was assessed by FBAT. The frequencies of alleles A and C were 95.1% and 4.9%, respectively. FBAT analysis revealed that the C allele was significantly associated with high baseline diastolic BP (Z = 2.041, p = 0.041), decreased systolic BP after treatment (Z = 2.549, p = 0.011), and decreased diastolic BP after treatment (Z = 2.320, p = 0.020).

Conclusion

Our results, determined using the FBAT, are the first evidence that the AT1R A1166C polymorphism may increase the antihypertensive effect of benazepril in patients with hypertension.     

Intensive treatment of persistent microalbuminuria: determinants of treatment resistance

Aims

Persistent microalbuminuria after treatment is a common finding. This study tried to evaluate the causes of treatment resistance.

Patients and methods

Sample: 204 patients treated with renina-angiotensin-axis (RAA) blocking drugs that showed positive microalbuminuria. Treatment was increased during three months to reach a BP < 130/80 mmHg and to obtain maximal RAA blockade. Then patient were classified as normoalbuminuric after treatment (N group) and microalbuminuric in spite of treatment (M).

Results

Mean microalbuminuria at recruitment was 48.5±25.6 mg/24h in N group and 90.0±140.3 mg/24h in M group. It was reduced to 16.1±10.0 mg/day in N group and to 83.5±138.2 mg/day in M group. At start, mean SBP and mean DBP were not different between groups. After treatment SBP and DBP pressure were reduced in both groups (differences between groups were not significant). Combined control of BP showed a slight increase in the two groups but it have only statistical significance in the N group (p = 0.031, McNemar test).

Conclusions

Persistent microalbuminuria seems to be associated to poor blood pressure control. Effective blood pressure reduction was followed by urinary albumin excretion decrease. Baseline severity of microalbuminuria was the only clear predictor of remission after treatment.     

Effects of ACE inhibition on circulating endothelial progenitor cells, vascular damage, and oxidative stress in hypertensive patients

Purpose

The pathogenic role of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition in hypertensive patients regarding endothelial progenitor-cell (EPC) function is still poorly understood. The aim of the study was to evaluate EPC number, function, and relationship to carotid intima media thickness (IMT) progression.

Methods

We studied 36 newly diagnosed mildly hypertensive patients free of cardiovascular disease and related risk factors without prior or concurrent therapy with ACE inhibitors. Patients were randomized to receive enalapril 20?mg/day (n?=?18) or zofenopril 30?mg/day (n?=?18). EPC number and migrating capacity, plasma nitrite and nitrate (NOx), and isoprostane concentrations were evaluated. Carotid IMT was determined by ultrasonography at baseline and after 1 and 5?years of follow-up.

Results

EPC number increased during the follow-up, with no statistical differences between treatment groups. There was an inverse correlation between circulating EPCs and IMT increase over time. Plasma NOx decreased during the study without evident differences between treatment groups. Isoprostanes decreased more markedly in zofenopril-treated patients. Multiple linear regression model demonstrated that carotid IMT was significantly inversely correlated with EPC but not with migratory cells after adjusting for confounders.

Conclusions

The study demonstrated that EPC levels increased during the follow-up in both groups of newly diagnosed hypertensive patients treated with ACE inhibitors. These drugs prevented progression of vascular damage, with an inverse correlation between circulating EPC levels and IMT values.     

Blood Pressure-Lowering Response to Amlodipine as a Determinant of the Antioxidative Activity of Small, Dense HDL3

Background and Objective

High-density lipoproteins (HDLs) exert multiple antiatherogenic activities including protection of low-density lipoproteins (LDLs) from oxidative stress. Beneficial effects of calcium channel blockers on cardiovascular disease may in part be related to the reduction of oxidative stress, potentially enhancing the antioxidative activity (AOX) of HDLs. This study aimed to assess the effect of 1 month’s treatment with amlodipine on HDL AOX in hypertensive subjects.

Methods

This was a prospective trial of amlodipine 10 mg/day administered for 1 month in primary-care patients with hypertension (n = 28), 46% of whom were obese and 57% of whom displayed the metabolic syndrome. The main outcome measure was HDL AOX, assessed as the capacity of small, dense HDL3c particles to attenuate LDL oxidation induced in vitro by an azo initiator (AAPH).

Results

Mean (±SD) systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) BP were reduced by amlodipine by 22.1mmHg (±13.2) and 10.4mmHg (±7.5), respectively (p<0.001). Body mass index, waist circumference, and plasma levels of triglycerides, cholesterol, and fasting blood glucose did not change significantly. Amlodipine treatment did not modify HDL3c AOX in the whole study population; changes in AOX were, however, positively correlated with SBP (r = 0.37, p = 0.05 for maximal diene concentration; r = 0.34, p = 0.08 for LDL oxidation rate). When the population was divided into two subgroups according to the BP response to amlodipine (change in SBP below or above the median), HDL3c AOX was significantly improved in hyperresponders (BP-lowering response >22/10 mmHg) as compared with hypo-responders (BP-lowering response <22/10mmHg: mean [± SD] change in the LDL oxidation rate in the presence of HDL3c, ?6.8% [± 11.2] vs +1.9% [±5.2], respectively, p = 0.04; maximal diene concentration, ?8.6% [±13.0] vs +1.9% [±8.2], respectively, p<0.05). By contrast, neither plasma concentrations of oxidized LDL, a marker of systemic oxidative stress, nor the chemical composition of HDL3c were modified between the subgroups.

Conclusions

In hypertensive patients, amlodipine treatment enhanced HDL AOX in subjects who had a BP reduction that exceeded the median response. This effect appears to be secondary to the hypotensive effect, rather than to the direct antioxidant properties, of the drug.     

Perindopril for control of blood pressure in patients with hypertension and other cardiovascular risk factors: an open-label, observational, multicentre, general practice-based study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Hypertension, one of the major treatable cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, usually occurs in association with other major risk factors. As well as providing rapid blood pressure (BP) goal attainment, antihypertensive therapy should also provide reductions in CV events and mortality in a wide range of patients. For this, higher dosages and combinations of antihypertensive agents are often required. ACE inhibitors are recommended as first-line agents for control of hypertension in patients with additional CV risk factors. The PEACH (Perindopril's Effect At Controlling Hypertension) study was a community-based study performed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of high-dose perindopril in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension and additional risk factors for CV disease. METHODS: This was an open-label, multicentre observational study conducted in Canadian general practice clinics. The study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of perindopril given once daily for 10 weeks uptitrated to the maximal recommended dose of perindopril as required for BP control in newly diagnosed or previously treated patients with uncontrolled mild to moderate hypertension and >or=1 additional risk factor. Patients not achieving target BP after 2 weeks of therapy were uptitrated from perindopril 4 mg to perindopril 8 mg once daily. Efficacy endpoints included reduction in systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) BP and BP control. Tolerability assessments included adverse effects and physicians' assessment of tolerability. The number of missed doses was also recorded. RESULTS: Overall, 2220 patients with hypertension and >or=1 other risk factor were prescribed perindopril at 291 centres; 51.9% were male, 78.3% Caucasian, 12.8% Asian, 36.2%>or=65 years of age and 34.5% had uncontrolled BP despite previous antihypertensive treatment. Compared with previously treated patients, treatment-naive patients had fewer risk factors, and a higher proportion were Asian (p<0.05 for all comparisons). Most patients (76%) had 1-2 risk factors. Perindopril produced significant SBP/DBP reductions at 2 and 10 weeks (-15.8/-8.0 and -21.1/-11.0 mmHg, respectively). Overall, at week 10, BP control rate was 53.6%, better than at week 2 in the overall cohort and in all subgroups. Uptitration to high-dose perindopril to achieve BP control was required in 46% of patients with one additional risk factor compared with 64% of patients with >or=4 additional risk factors. These results demonstrate that the more risk factors the patient has, the greater the need for high-dose perindopril to achieve BP control. Perindopril was well tolerated as indicated by the high proportion of physicians (95.9%) reporting 'good' to 'excellent' tolerability at week 10. CONCLUSION: In this community-based clinical practice trial, up to 10 weeks' perindopril therapy, uptitrated to the maximal recommended dose as required for BP control, significantly reduced SBP/DBP in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension and additional CV risk factors. Patients with more risk factors were more likely to require high-dose perindopril.     

Comparing Antihypertensive Effect and Plasma Ciclosporin Concentration between Amlodipine and Valsartan Regimens in Hypertensive Renal Transplant Patients Receiving Ciclosporin Therapy

Background

Hypertension, a major complication in kidney transplant recipients, is associated with premature death and graft loss. However, an optimal antihypertensive therapy for these patients has not been established [Chinese Clinical Trial Registry No. ChiCTR-TRC-10001071].

Objective

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of amlodipine and valsartan on BP control in renal transplant patients and to analyze the correlation between cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A5 or multidrug resistance-1 gene (MDR1) genotype and the antihypertensive effect of these two regimens.

Methods

150 renal transplant patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension were enrolled in the trial. Patients were randomly assigned to amlodipine or valsartan. Metoprolol was added if BP was not under control after 4 weeks. BP and plasma levels of ciclosporin were monitored during the 24-week trial. CYP3A5 and MDR1 genotypes were determined using a polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) method.

Results

The demographic features and baseline BP were similar between these two groups. During the 24-week trial, the reduction of systolic BP (SBP) was similar between the amlodipine and valsartan groups. However, the reduction of diastolic BP (DBP) was significantly greater in the amlodipine group compared with the valsartan group at 12, 16, and 24 weeks of treatment. The plasma level of ciclosporin at 2 hours of medication was significantly higher in the amlodipine group than in the valsartan group after 4 weeks of the trial. The reduction of DBP at 24 weeks was greater in the subjects with CYP3A5 *3/*3 variant than in those with CYP3A5*1/*1 variant (?13.5± 1.9mmHg vs ?8.7± 1.6mmHg, p<0.05).

Conclusion

The present study demonstrated that amlodipine produced a greater reduction of DBP than valsartan, although both amlodipine and valsartan resulted in satisfactory control of BP in patients with renal transplantation. Administration of amlodipine significantly increased the plasma concentration of ciclosporin, and its effects on BP control and ciclosporin concentration may be associated with the CYP3A5 genotype in these subjects [Chinese Clinical Trial Registry No. ChiCTR-TRC-10001071].     

Seated cuff blood pressure-lowering efficacy of an olmesartan medoxomil-based treatment regimen in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Background: Hypertension is a common co-morbidity in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, and well tolerated, effective therapies are needed to achieve guideline-recommended blood pressure (BP) goals in these patients.Objective: The aim of this study was to present the results of a prespecified analysis of key secondary endpoints from a 12-week, open-label, single-arm study evaluating the efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes.Study Design and Methods: After a placebo run-in period, 192 patients received olmesartan medoxomil 20mg/day for 3 weeks. If BP remained ≥120/70mmHg, patients were uptitrated at 3-week intervals to olmesartanmedoxomil 40mg/day, olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ 40/12.5mg/day, and olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ 40/25mg/day.Main Outcome Measure: Endpoints evaluated in this analysis were the change from baseline in mean seated cuff BP (SeBP), proportions of patients achieving SeBP goals, and distribution of SeBP reductions.Results: Mean SeBP was 158.1/90.0mmHg at baseline. The mean±standard error of BP reductions at 12 weeks for systolic and diastolic BP were 21.3±1.1mmHg and 9.8±0.6 mmHg, respectively (p<0.0001 for each). At the end of the study, the proportion of patients with diabetes achieving the recommended SeBP goal of <130/80 mmHg was 41.1%.Conclusions: An olmesartan medoxomil±HCTZ treatment regimen significantly reduced BP from baseline in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes.Clinical Trials Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00403481","term_id":"NCT00403481"}}NCT00403481     

Effect of beta-1-blocker, nebivolol, on central aortic pressure and arterial stiffness in patients with essential hypertension

Introduction:

Blood pressure (BP) reduction is the major determinant of benefit provided by antihypertensive treatment. Although different drugs reduce peripheral BP to some extent, there may be a significant difference in their effect on central BP reduction. It has been shown that beta-blockers are efficient in reducing peripheral, but not central BP. This study was done to assess the effect of beta-1-blocker, nebivolol, in patients with essential hypertension on central aortic pressures and arterial stiffness.

Materials and Methods:

In this single arm, open-labeled study, 13 patients were given nebivolol, 5 mg orally once daily for 15 days. Primary outcome was change in central aortic pressure, and other measures of efficacy included changes in brachial BP, augmentation index (AIx%), AIx%@75 HR, augmentation pressure (AP), heart rate (HR), and carotid femoral pulse wave velocity (PWVcf).

Results:

Nebivolol 5 mg significantly reduced central aortic pressures [systolic BP, 131.5–111.6 mmHg; diastolic BP, 96.3–81.7 mmHg; Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP), 111.3–94.0 mmHg (all P<0.0001), and Pulse Pressure (PP), 35.2-29.7 mmHg (P<0.01)]. AIx%@75 HR reduced from 29 to 21.6 (P<0.001) and PWVcf reduced from 8.6 to 7.2 m/s (P<0.001). One subject was lost to followup.

Conclusion:

Nebivolol 5 mg demonstrated antihypertensive efficacy in patients with essential hypertension by reducing not only peripheral brachial pressures, but also significantly reducing central aortic pressures, augmentation index, and carotid femoral pulse wave velocity, which is the marker of arterial stiffness.KEY WORDS: Nebivolol, central aortic pressures, arterial stiffness